GK HARIHARA RAJAN Vs. NEETHIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Miscellaneous Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the purported delay of 116 days in preferring the Civil Revision Petition in S. R. No. 2871 of 2008.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed by the petitioner in M. P. No. 2 of 2009 it is averred that in the preamble of the present civil revision petition it has been categorically mentioned that by virtue of liberty granted by this Court in C. R. P. No. 3010 of 2008 on 30. 12. 2008 during Christmas vacation and this Civil revision petition has been filed on 09. 01. 2009 itself, when the alleged delay of 116 days does not arise and if the civil revision petition has been filed without liberty being granted then the 116 days delay will arise and this miscellaneous petition has been filed to avoid further delay by the examiners in passing the above civil revision petition to satisfy the requirement of the examiners and therefore, the said delay of 116 days may be ordered to be condoned by this Court in regard to the filing of the civil revision petition.

(3.) IN the counter filed by the first respondent it is inter alia mentioned that the allegations and averments made in the affidavit in M. P. No. 2 of 2009 are untrue and moreover, the second and third respondents have borrowed a sum of Rs. One lakh on the security of the property bearing Door No. 12, Bazaar Street, Royapuram, Chennai-13, and executed a registered mortgage deed in his favour on 2. 08. 1991 at SRO Royapuram, Document No. 1498 of 1991 and they have agreed to pay an interest at the rate of 24% per annum and that when they failed to pay the mortgage amount after legal notice dated 24. 11. 1992, the property has been brought on auction on sale and that the second and third respondents filed redemption suit No. 663 of 1993 on 21. 01. 1993 and they obtained stay before the Learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, on the ground that they borrowed only Rs. 47,000/- and not Rs. 1,00,000/- and further that the second respondent has sent a letter on 22. 09. 1995 stating that they have borrowed Rs. One lakh and the suit property has been sold to the petitioner and she has directed the petitioner to discharge the mortgage debt of Rs. One lakh along with the accrued interest thereto and at that point of time the first respondent has come to know that the petitioner has purchased the mortgage property without permission of the Court by means of registered document no. 216 of 1993 and without disclosing his purchase the petitioner has been conducting the suit on behalf of the second and third respondents, even though the counsels are on record after receiving the letter from the second respondent, he has filed I. A. No. 14938 of 1995 in O. S. No. 663 of 1993 before the Learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, praying for the dismissal of suit on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3 have admitted the mortgage debt, by giving a go-by to the prayer of the suit and two and half years later the petitioner has filed numerous Interlocutory Appications including I. A. No. 16111 of 1995 to implead him as plaintiff and I. A. No. 3200 of 1996 for permitting him as third plaintiff to continue the O. S. no. 663 of 1993 since he purchased the mortgage property on 05. 02. 1993 when the suit has been pending and the redemption suit as well as all the I. A's filed by the petitioner have been dismissed on 18. 01. 2006 and allowed the first respondent's I. A. No. 14938 of 1995 and further a finding has been given that the petitioner is not a bona fide purchaser of the mortgage property etc.